PDA

View Full Version : Mac / PC confusion


cosmari
10-03-2004, 02:37 PM
I DO NOT wish to start yet another boring and very "uncool" Mac versus PC war.

However I am still confused and struggle to make my mind up regarding upgrading
from a Dual G4. I have been using it for Freehand and Photoshop, but now I will
start with 3D (Maya or Lightwave) and it seems as the overwhelming majority of
users recommend PC's.

Is this majority including professionals and studios?

Is the difference in the speed and only that?

Will I really be THAT disappointed by the OS stability of the PC?

Which PC's on the market are a good comparison to Apple's G5 Dual?

Can anyone comment on Lightwave or Maya on the G5?

What are the strong/weak points of each? Mac-PC


Thank you and please CREATE don't "FIGHT" :-)

kid tripod
10-03-2004, 03:34 PM
I use both Macs (unfortunately not G5) and PCs.

I'd sum it up easily:
The Mac is generally better for 2D work
The PC is generally better for 3D work

based on my experience anyway.

The big 3D issue is the lack of pro graphics card support on Mac, and the software does feel a little bit like a second rate citizen.

If you're used to Freehand and Photoshop you won't notice anything different with the PC cousins.

And a good PC configuration (ie not with too much in the system tray) can be left on for days with no probs. What you would miss is decent colour management, which PCs tend to suck at, at least relative to mac-land.

Mantat
10-03-2004, 10:19 PM
I DO NOT wish to start yet another boring and very "uncool" Mac versus PC war.

However I am still confused and struggle to make my mind up regarding upgrading
from a Dual G4. I have been using it for Freehand and Photoshop, but now I will
start with 3D (Maya or Lightwave) and it seems as the overwhelming majority of
users recommend PC's.

Is this majority including professionals and studios?

Is the difference in the speed and only that?

Will I really be THAT disappointed by the OS stability of the PC?

Which PC's on the market are a good comparison to Apple's G5 Dual?

Can anyone comment on Lightwave or Maya on the G5?

What are the strong/weak points of each? Mac-PC


Thank you and please CREATE don't "FIGHT" :-)

First of all, do you really have to learn Maya or is it just a choice because it the most popular? By what you are saying, I guess that you havent bought any app yet, so may I suggest Cinema4D. It really is an awesome software at a very decent price. It actually beat Maya on a lot of points, especialy if you dont have a pro training it them. Give it a try, you will see what I mean.

As for Maya, over 20% of the licences sold by Alias are or Mac. Read it as you wish, thats a lot of people because of the remaining 80% have to be splited between Windows, Linux, Irix, etc.. So I am pretty sure that the distribution between platforms is homogenous. The real problem with Maya for mac is the lack of plugins but it should be solved with the new release that allow coding from xCode.

As for video card, dont let pc users fool you, G5 can use the 6800 wich definatly is strong enough to handle anything you can do. So no difference there either, unless you are doing some ridiculously hi-ed stuff which you arent gonna do since you are a beginer.

To sum it up, you wont be at lost with a mac with maya (if you get a G5), but if you really want to safe a lot of cash, look at Cinema4D, it might fill your need and keep cash in your pocket for more computer upgrades.

I will let someone else talk about lightwave.

cosmari
10-04-2004, 04:50 AM
Thank you for your replies and advice.

I am still not ready to decide between Mac and Pc upgrade, however
I will definitely try out Cinema4D as well.

Vertizor
10-04-2004, 05:38 AM
The neat thing about Lightwave is it'll run on both PC and Mac with the one package you buy. Trouble is, from what I've read the Mac version of Lightwave seems to have a lot more problems than the PC version. Like kid tripod said, Mac 3D software seem to be second rate citizens. Search within these forums and in the forums of the respective 3d package and you'll find plenty of posts from Mac users complaining about Maya/Lightwave, how they don't always act the same or are as fast as the PC version.

Srek
10-04-2004, 06:47 AM
The neat thing about Lightwave is it'll run on both PC and Mac with the one package you buy. Trouble is, from what I've read the Mac version of Lightwave seems to have a lot more problems than the PC version. Like kid tripod said, Mac 3D software seem to be second rate citizens. Search within these forums and in the forums of the respective 3d package and you'll find plenty of posts from Mac users complaining about Maya/Lightwave, how they don't always act the same or are as fast as the PC version.
Don't know about LW but CINEMA is definitly not second rate on Mac. Development and support are identical for both machines, only where third party programs comes in there are differences. I.e RPC only on PC and Combustion support only on Mac.
Also by far the most plugins are available for both platforms since the SDK for both is identical.
There are differences in OGL since the drivers on Mac and PC are very different. Mostly the PC is in the lead here, but this depends on the graphics card and OS beeing used. The differences are imho not that important to base a decision between the platforms on it.

Cheers
Srek

Vertizor
10-04-2004, 03:59 PM
I own C4D 7 for Windows, and played with v8 demo on my Mac. You are right, it's very consistent across the 2 platforms. It's just sad that not all the other 3D software companies can't be the same consistency.

Goon
10-04-2004, 04:50 PM
1.Is this majority including professionals and studios?
2.Is the difference in the speed and only that?
3.Will I really be THAT disappointed by the OS stability of the PC?
4.Which PC's on the market are a good comparison to Apple's G5 Dual?
5.Can anyone comment on Lightwave or Maya on the G5?
6.What are the strong/weak points of each? Mac-PC

1. Can't answer that. I'm not a pro. But I wouldn't be surprised to see figures on the market being mostly saturated with pcs. Fields like graphic design and print are still heavily mac though.

2. No. Multiproccessor support in the mac is better (they can more efficiently utilize both). Processors are different etc. But in the end the speed of the software is really what is important, so yes.

3. No, winXP, win2k are quite satifactorily stable. As is linux. Conversely a mac can be incredibly unstable. I've used macs and pcs in labs and generally the pcs worked better for me. But this is really a factor of doing a good job of setting up and maintaining a computer. However macs are generally better in this category because apple can produce a single, well tested product, with only a few variations in hardware, whereas the glut of variations in pc hardware can lead to conflicts, poor quality parts, etc.

4. Dual Xeon, Dual Opteron, maybe P4 3.4ghz.

5. Haven't used lw on a mac, haven't used maya on a g5 (it was really sluggish on a g4 tho)

6. Mac: Unix based operating system, solid parts, 64bit cpu, with a 64bit os on its way, Apple Cinema displays *drools* (you can use all but the largest of the new models on a pc), final cut pro, shake, motion. PC: flexible configuration, can build yourself, can cost far less than a mac, but the highend pcs can also cost just as much if not more (Opterons and xeons are really expensive), greater range of graphics cards available, greater range of software available.

I like pcs. I can afford pcs. But I would take a good g5 anyday.

I am not an expert at computers in any way. This is just stuff i've picked up along the way, so if i'm wrong, plz correct me.

XenaTrek
10-04-2004, 04:51 PM
I too use both... I have PC's at home, while my classes at the college uses Mac's. It is my understanding thru the instructors that video and graphics tend to work best on the MACs... while PCs has the processing power for rendering.

After about a decade of playing with both, I really don't see too much of a difference, I just get the shortcut commands backwards when I use the same software on both platforms.

My two cents.
XenaTrek

Thalaxis
10-04-2004, 07:21 PM
Is this majority including professionals and studios?

Yes, by a huge (and growing) margin. Apple's market share has been largely static for a while now, while the industry's been growing.


Is the difference in the speed and only that?

No, but the assertion that macs have better SMP isn't accurate either.

The GUIs are different (not as different as they used to be, though), and you have the blessing/curse of having far fewer options with a mac.


Will I really be THAT disappointed by the OS stability of the PC?

Not in the least, unless you do something stupid like run WinME :)


Which PC's on the market are a good comparison to Apple's G5 Dual?

Boxx (caters to this market specifically), Dell, Xi, AppPro, AlienWare, Sys, and I'm sure others can point you to more, particularly if you're not in the US, since there are quite a few vendors that don't do cross-pond business (it makes support rather challenging).


What are the strong/weak points of each? Mac-PC

Under the hood, they're not very different. For the mac you have but one brand to choose from, and you get access to a fairly limited software library. For Windows, you get access to a nigh infinite library of software, and a plethora of system builders to choose from. For Linux, you are somewhere in between, but not as far behind Windows as MS would want you to think.

Due to the intense competition in chipsets for PC's, they are now almost as a rule very feature-rich, as well as extremely fast, and new technology makes its way into the mainstream by the time companies that make their own chipsets (Apple) get them integrated, tested, and into production.

Hence the blessing/curse that goes with the mac; since there's only one vendor, it's easier to shop for, there aren't as many options to screw up, and there's only one company you have to pester for driver updates. The price you pay is that the machines tend to cost more for what you get, they aren't as fast, and they don't generally add the latest technologies as quickly as the rest of the market.

kid tripod
10-04-2004, 07:48 PM
I think the reality is that in Mac land you have the case where you can either do something better than anywhere else (but the software will cost you) or you can't do it at all. And that's if the software exists for what you want to do.

What's so far understated here is that PCs don't have an answer to iCal, which I'd never encountered before owning a Mac, but now couldn't live without. All calendar apps should be like that.

Again, if you want to really do editing you're better off on Mac, because Apple themselves have raised the stakes so high with FCP. Motion could (when specced up properly) be of similar consequence.

The sad reality is that most non-Apple software (for Macs obviously . . .) doesn't do the system as a whole justice, because it would be uneconomic for a third party to invest so heavily. Especially as Apple will compete with you/buy you if you start to do too well. A dubious practise, but currently it's home to some of the best products in the industry. I think making purely hardware comparisons is irrelevant (largely since intel people seem to have trouble comparing their stuff with any other architecture) and you're better off comparing two whole solutions of software/hardware combos, and seeing how they match up in features and real performance.

A broader point: the last machine I bought was my iBook, and I did so knowing it's the last proprietary OS based machine I would buy. My next one will be an open source desktop of some form, and I think the Mac is closer to the future model of the open source desktop than either Linux (with Gnome/KDE) is now, or Windows is (given the OpenGL accelerated UI, UNIX backend, which being and old SGI man I like). In 3 years time I expect the OS distinctions to be a lot less than they are now. Where I work we run Win2k and Linux on the desktop, and one of the main reasons I'm not on Linux: iTunes shares. The other: Photoshop. Everything else I run seems to be cross-platform (largely since I work with a lot of Java . . . )

Mantat
10-04-2004, 07:58 PM
Humm...

Yes, by a huge (and growing) margin. Apple's market share has been largely static for a while now, while the industry's been growing.
How can that be? Total of market share are supposed to total 100%. So if one grows, the other has to shrink. Basic maths.


The GUIs are different (not as different as they used to be, though), and you have the blessing/curse of having far fewer options with a mac. .I dont understand what you mean by options, other than video cards. Most of the pro cards for video and audio editing are availlable on mac. All of the other computer parts are easy to take from pc to a mac or upgradable.


Under the hood, they're not very different. For the mac you have but one brand to choose from, and you get access to a fairly limited software library. For Windows, you get access to a nigh infinite library of software, and a plethora of system builders to choose from. For Linux, you are somewhere in between, but not as far behind Windows as MS would want you to think. .
Macs probably have more apps than linux and you have acces to most of the unix stuff too. And what is the point of needing 10000000 software when the platform you choose has all the software you need. Last time I checked, I only used one software to: surf, paint, draw, listne to music, manage pictures, edit DV and make music. And lucky for me, the later 4 are much better on mac than anything availlable to the pc.

I think the most important thing you should think about when you want to buy a computer for productivity is to realise that you arent buying a computer, you are buying softare. Get the best software to do the job and then look at the platform you need to use them.


Hence the blessing/curse that goes with the mac; since there's only one vendor, it's easier to shop for, there aren't as many options to screw up, and there's only one company you have to pester for driver updates. The price you pay is that the machines tend to cost more for what you get, they aren't as fast, and they don't generally add the latest technologies as quickly as the rest of the market.
This probably is the worst misconception since the flat earth theory...
Apple introduce way before it was mainstream Firewire on every computer and laptop, CD burners, DVD burners, FW800, Wireless networking (years ahead of the pc), big screen laptop, ultra thin laptop, first 64bit consummer OS and CPU, etc...
What exactly in this list isnt latest technology? These are hardware, on the software side its even worst... Apple drives the innovation in the computer field (and marketing).

Apple is victim of a lot of misconceptions and enterprise such as Intel (your p4 CPU make your internet goes faster, right?) and pc mags probably have much to do with it. This was just to point some facts (the innovation thing really annoy me).

Since I switched to mac, the only thing I wasnt able to do is play MMORPG and this is a real blessing since it gave me back at few hours every week that I can use to do productive stuff, like posting in forums like this... :-S

Thalaxis
10-04-2004, 07:58 PM
I think the reality is that in Mac land you have the case where you can either do something better than anywhere else (but the software will cost you) or you can't do it at all. And that's if the software exists for what you want to do.
So much for rational discussion.

Thalaxis
10-04-2004, 08:11 PM
How can that be? Total of market share are supposed to total 100%. So if one grows, the other has to shrink. Basic maths.

Sorry, wrong choice of words.


I dont understand what you mean by options, other than video cards. Most of the pro cards for video and audio editing are availlable on mac. All of the other computer parts are easy to take from pc to a mac or upgradable.

You ought to look around a little more. There's a LOT out there for PC's that never gets ported to macs, because of markets that macs don't exist in. And there are some stellar tools for things like compositing that are available for Windows and Linux, but not the mac (like Digital Fusion, for example).


This probably is the worst misconception since the flat earth theory...
Apple introduce way before it was mainstream Firewire on every computer and laptop, CD burners, DVD burners, FW800, Wireless networking (years ahead of the pc), big screen laptop, ultra thin laptop, first 64bit consummer OS and CPU, etc...
What exactly in this list isnt latest technology? These are hardware, on the software side its even worst... Apple drives the innovation in the computer field (and marketing).

No, the fact is that they don't any longer. Their lastest systems are pretty much clones of PC's, internally; where do think USB, PCI, ATAPI, and SATA came from? And the HyperTransport interfaces in the G5 use AMD chips.


Apple is victim of a lot of misconceptions and enterprise such as Intel (your p4 CPU make your internet goes faster, right?) and pc mags probably have much to do with it. This was just to point some facts (the innovation thing really annoy me).

It should, since the majority of their innovation of late has nothing to do with computer hardware, which probably explains to a large extent why the iPod now generates more revenue for Apple than their computers do.

Mantat
10-04-2004, 08:28 PM
You ought to look around a little more. There's a LOT out there for PC's that never gets ported to macs, because of markets that macs don't exist in. And there are some stellar tools for things like compositing that are available for Windows and Linux, but not the mac (like Digital Fusion, for example).
.I am no pro in composing, but I think Shake can hold its ground againts anything else. But you are probably right that some specialised solution arent availlable on mac. But if you need this specialty software, you shouldnt think about a mac in the first place.


No, the fact is that they don't any longer. Their lastest systems are pretty much clones of PC's, internally; where do think USB, PCI, ATAPI, and SATA came from? And the HyperTransport interfaces in the G5 use AMD chips..Another misconception... They dont come from PC manufacturers. They come from consortiums (sp?). And these are formed by manufacturers or computers, digital camera, peripheral, etc... And Apple is generaly the first to use these norms because they can integrate them quickly in the OS. For exemple, SATA drives in the X-RAID server was way ahead of the game in the storage market.


It should, since the majority of their innovation of late has nothing to do with computer hardware, which probably explains to a large extent why the iPod now generates more revenue for Apple than their computers do.If I see another keynote where they talk for more than 3mins about the iPod, I think I am gonna go postal. There is so much more to computer than music!

Thalaxis
10-04-2004, 09:03 PM
I am no pro in composing, but I think Shake can hold its ground againts anything else. But you are probably right that some specialised solution arent availlable on mac. But if you need this specialty software, you shouldnt think about a mac in the first place.

I'm not saying that Shake can't hold it's own, but the assertion that "anything you can do on a mac you can do better than anywhere else" doesn't hold water. It did once... but not any longer. Apple fell behind the technology curve when they dropped the ball on Rhapsody. There are a lot of things to like about OSX. I still think that Apple could win a LOT of market share by teaming up with the likes of Dell, but Apple and the user community are too obsessed with trying to convince the world that their PC clone is somehow superior to all others instead.


Another misconception... They dont come from PC manufacturers. They come from consortiums (sp?). And these are formed by manufacturers or computers, digital camera, peripheral, etc... And Apple is generaly the first to use these norms because they can integrate them quickly in the OS. For exemple, SATA drives in the X-RAID server was way ahead of the game in the storage market.

Most of them came from Intel (e.g. IDE, PCI, AGP), some came from AMD (HyperTransport), and became standards after the fact. USB and SATA were exactly like that; Intel implemented them, and everyone else followed suit in order to avoid being left behind. Apple followed suit after Intel muscled the 3rd party vendors into getting on board. For the past few years, Apple's been the last to adopt most of these. Digital audio I/O and six-channel decoding were already ubiquitous by the time Apple got them into their machines.

In cases like PCI, Intel developed the technology in house and, like AMD with HT, submitted it to a standards committee in order to get it accepted in the industry. It's a pretty good sign that they no longer have the power to dictate these things like they used to, because PCI-Express isn't their baby.

And of course, PCI Express is another example.


If I see another keynote where they talk for more than 3mins about the iPod, I think I am gonna go postal. There is so much more to computer than music!
Since it's making more money than their computing divisions, it's not surprising, though I understand your annoyance.

kid tripod
10-04-2004, 09:12 PM
So much for rational discussion.

It's entirely true though. Some examples:
Music:
Logic Pro is the best sequencer around. It'll cost you to get it though, and there aren't really any decent intermediate products for the Mac based consumer (Logic Express is expensive for what it does).

Editing:
FCP at the mid, Avid at the top (are they still doing Mac stuff, I don't know . . .) and DV stuff at the bottom, still miles better than PC based equivalents (and I've used hardware accelerated DVE on Windows, the downside being they're good for that, but you can't do anything else on the machine because the driver configuration to get the performance is so fragile). I blame Matrox . . .

However there's a good number of 3D tasks simply impossible on Macs (well, not impossible, but much easier elsewhere . . .). And until iTunes came along there wasn't a decent ripping/organising etc. app on macs either. (And that's just the tip of the iceberg). I find that if the Mac will do something it will tend to do it fast, well and easily, or not at all.

I personally find it incredible that compositors manage to get PCs (linux or windows) to the level of colour accuracy required (and you can effectively take for granted on Macs or SGIs). Obviously not impossible, but I wouldn't want to be the person setting those up.

The Mac has been tuned massively towards the 2D graphics/print arena for a very long time, and the whole feature set of the system reflects that. The real time video in software thing is a unique selling point they can use whilst they are in the position of knowing the hardware so well, a luxury PC people can't have.

kid tripod
10-04-2004, 09:19 PM
Most of them came from Intel (e.g. IDE, PCI, AGP), some came from AMD (HyperTransport), and became standards after the fact. USB and SATA were exactly like that; Intel implemented them, and everyone else followed suit in order to avoid being left behind.

That's a fantastically narrow view of computing history.

A lot of what's good in AMDs chips is from outside the company, like Alpha technology on it's bus, and they used some stuff from the SGI Octane.

Also USB had not taken off, and never would have done, without the iMac. Peripheral manufacturers simply ignored it until you had such a large, and entirely USB dependent, captive audience.

Lots of the new stuff in the JVM 1.5 came from Apple's implementation of 1.4 (like the shared libs and decent J2D). So they do contribute usefully to the wider world.

I'm not saying Macs are best at everything (far from it), but the assertion that the PC has all the best solutions is equally misled.

Thalaxis
10-05-2004, 12:46 AM
That's a fantastically narrow view of computing history.

If you assume that it's the entirety of my view, mabye. But now you're putting words in my mouth.


A lot of what's good in AMDs chips is from outside the company, like Alpha technology on it's bus, and they used some stuff from the SGI Octane.

I'm well aware of that, but it's still orthogonal to my point.


Also USB had not taken off, and never would have done, without the iMac. Peripheral manufacturers simply ignored it until you had such a large, and entirely USB dependent, captive audience.

The mac wasn't a particularly large market, so that's obviously bogus. The turning point was support in Win98OSR2 and in Win2k.


Lots of the new stuff in the JVM 1.5 came from Apple's implementation of 1.4 (like the shared libs and decent J2D). So they do contribute usefully to the wider world.

On rare occasion, they do... they have good software people there, though they'd have a much better OS if they'd just let their engineers do their job.


I'm not saying Macs are best at everything (far from it), but the assertion that the PC has all the best solutions is equally misled.
And again, you're putting words in my mouth.

Thalaxis
10-05-2004, 12:52 AM
It's entirely true though. Some examples:
Music:
Logic Pro is the best sequencer around. It'll cost you to get it though, and there aren't really any decent intermediate products for the Mac based consumer (Logic Express is expensive for what it does).

I prefere Live, myself... but then this is to a large degree a matter of taste.


Editing:
FCP at the mid, Avid at the top (are they still doing Mac stuff, I don't know . . .) and DV stuff at the bottom, still miles better than PC based equivalents (and I've used hardware accelerated DVE on Windows, the downside being they're good for that, but you can't do anything else on the machine because the driver configuration to get the performance is so fragile). I blame Matrox . . .

Avid does Windows also, and their top-end solutions are Windows only, even now. And the driver problems you're talking about aren't a problem in the real world.


I personally find it incredible that compositors manage to get PCs (linux or windows) to the level of colour accuracy required (and you can effectively take for granted on Macs or SGIs). Obviously not impossible, but I wouldn't want to be the person setting those up.

Why? It's not hard -- it's just requires third party software, since it's not build into the OS.


The Mac has been tuned massively towards the 2D graphics/print arena for a very long time, and the whole feature set of the system reflects that. The real time video in software thing is a unique selling point they can use whilst they are in the position of knowing the hardware so well, a luxury PC people can't have.
Realtime video is unique? That's a new one. There are quite a few Windows software developers that would probably take issue with that.

Regarding your final statement... you ought to open your eyes sometime.

Ankolisto Flower
10-05-2004, 03:59 AM
I use both pcs and macs. PC at home Macs at work. I soooooooo prefer the pcs for both speed and being reliable. The whole hype about windows sucking, sucks it self. In the 2 year life of this pc. I havent crashed once. Maybe my apps crashed maybe ten times between count of every app though. So maybe once per apps run, and of only when I was doing stupid stuff like really going high end with projects just to test to see if I could do it.

For a video card, I really suggest the vp990 pro from 3d labs. Its really cheap and is more powerful then all the cards I read about in these threads. Stats on the card. 512 megs of vram, the vpu is a dual vpu giving you a total of like like 780mhz i belive. Something close to that. When the best card from nvidia or radeon is a 256 meg card with 400mhz vpu. Its a whole different story. Plus on all 3d labs cards. shading langauges and plugins are programmable (8'D.

kid tripod
10-05-2004, 09:23 AM
"The mac wasn't a particularly large market, so that's obviously bogus. "

The (original) iMac itself accounted for a simply massive proportion of "personal computer" sales overall. They shifted really frightening numbers of them. And remember you had to use USB peripherals: there wasn't any other way with those.

And the fact is there isn't a software based realtime video solution that can really compete with FCP. That is FCP's real USP.

And regarding "driver issues not being a problem in the real world" I think they were. It meant that when using that machine (the specific one I was on) you'd have to do all 3D work on another box (because the DVE card didn't like having OpenGL lying around) reducing it to a one use machine. That's fine in big places, but if you ever want to do both that option simply didn't exist to you.

3D now is where the music production thing was 10 years ago, a blend of software and special hardware, whereas 10 years into the future we'll be in all software land, and all the better for it. (I remember first hearing what VST was and thinking the concept utterly insane, but it's now raised the quality you can do at a given budget massively).

And "regarding my final statement" I can tell you that as a programmer, if you know the architecture of your final runtime system in the way a Mac guy can (or a games console person can) you can dramatically improve your performance relative to someone relying on a more pluggable driver based interface. (Both have their uses in life). It's for that reason XBox games can look better than a 700Mhz P3 with a geforce 2 graphics card and 64MB ram.

Thalaxis
10-05-2004, 05:48 PM
The (original) iMac itself accounted for a simply massive proportion of "personal computer" sales overall. They shifted really frightening numbers of them. And remember you had to use USB peripherals: there wasn't any other way with those.

You ought to take a look at the numbers sometime... Dell alone sold more machines per quarter than Apple did in a year. Apple just rode on Intel's coattails as far as USB was concerned.


And the fact is there isn't a software based realtime video solution that can really compete with FCP. That is FCP's real USP.

Maybe you ought to tell those other companies that they don't exist then.


And regarding "driver issues not being a problem in the real world" I think they were. It meant that when using that machine (the specific one I was on) you'd have to do all 3D work on another box (because the DVE card didn't like having OpenGL lying around) reducing it to a one use machine. That's fine in big places, but if you ever want to do both that option simply didn't exist to you.

It's impressive how people manage to invent trends out of one product with a flaky driver. I suppose I ought go tell my friend with his Video Toaster that his setup doesn't work, eh?


3D now is where the music production thing was 10 years ago, a blend of software and special hardware, whereas 10 years into the future we'll be in all software land, and all the better for it. (I remember first hearing what VST was and thinking the concept utterly insane, but it's now raised the quality you can do at a given budget massively).

That's probably true. Doc Mojo predicts that in the future graphics processors will be sufficiently general purpose as to make the PC paradigm irrelevant, and then we'll start seeing coprocessors for other aspects of computing, where a general purpose processor isn't economical or optimal.


And "regarding my final statement" I can tell you that as a programmer, if you know the architecture of your final runtime system in the way a Mac guy can (or a games console person can) you can dramatically improve your performance relative to someone relying on a more pluggable driver based interface. (Both have their uses in life). It's for that reason XBox games can look better than a 700Mhz P3 with a geforce 2 graphics card and 64MB ram.
I wasn't referring to having a narrow target platform. You should have a look at the engineering resources that developers who want them have access to for x86 platforms, courtesy of Intel, MS, AMD, and the 'net. What makes the XBox such a nice platform is that there's only one, and you don't have to worry about scalability, because they're all the same. Your engine doesn't have to be playable on a clunker, and dazzling on a screamer.

Of course, all that you just did was confirm that you agree with my assertion that the limited choices for the mac are both a blessing (smaller range of targets to worry about) and a curse (smaller range of choices to pick from).

sketchbook
10-06-2004, 08:09 PM
from my experience working with macs is much more preferable. a lot easier to maintain (none required) than the pc and a lot more stable. i use my mac for graphic design and 3d work. i also have a pc for 3d work.

i use cinema 4d. have it loaded on my G5 dual 2, with 1.5 gigs of ram, and i also have it loaded on a dual 3.4 xeon with 1.5 gigs of ram.

both machines have the 9800 pro card. the pc is much faster with viewport speed - and opening files, etc. rendering they are about the same i suppose. i don't have the advanced renderer on the pc - so i have to render everything on my mac.

lots
10-06-2004, 08:20 PM
Just to make a note about stability..

Its been my experience that a system (ANY system, windows, mac, unix, linux, etc) is only as good as the person administering/using it. Bad admin/user = poor stability and speed.

CGTalk Moderation
01-19-2006, 10:00 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.